admitted, see State Bar of California Rule 5.82(2) (2011), resulting in the 

California Bar later filing a petition to have hiin disbarred. 1 See State Bar 

of California Rules 5.83(C)(1) and 5.85(A) (2011) (requiring California bar 

counsel to file a petition for disbarment if an attorney fails, within 180 

days, to have a default entered in a disciplinary proceeding set aside or 

vacated). 

The admitted facts demonstrate that Stuart was convicted of 

17 counts of harassment because he initiated or sent approximately 21 

telephone calls or e-mails to his ex-wife •that were threatening and 

intended to harass or frighten her. While the State Bar Court found that 

repeated harassing by telephone or e-mail does not always involve conduct 

warranting discipline, it concluded that Stuart's harassment of his ex-wife 

did involve moral turpitude, and thus, warranted discipline. It further 

determined that because Stuart failed to have the default entered against 

him set aside, disbarment was warranted under State Bar of California 

Rule 5.85. Following the State Bar Court's entry of an order 

recommending that Stuart be disbarred, the California Supreme Court 

entered an order disbarring him from practicing law in California. 

Nevada disciplinary proceedings 

Before receiving the notice of disbarment, the Nevada Office of 

Bar Counsel filed a petition in this court under SCR 111(4) based on 

Stuart's California convictions, which was docketed as Docket No. 60061. 

Because this court's initial review of that matter indicated that Stuart's 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

'The State Bar Court order recommending that Stuart be disbarred 

notes that, shortly after default was entered, Stuart made two calls to the 

State Bar stating his intent to challenge the default and submitted a 

pleading entitled "Opposition" to the State Bar, which contained no proof 

of service and was not filed with the State Bar Court. Stuart, however, 

never filed a request to have the default entered against him set aside. 

2 

(0) 1947A 
convictions did not appear to meet the definition of serious crime set forth 

in SCR 111(6), but were not for minor offenses and adversely reflected on 

his fitness to practice law, he was directed to show cause why he should 

not be temporarily suspended and referred for discipline in accordance 

with SCR 111(9). See In re Discipline of Stuart, Docket No. 60061 (Order 

to Show Cause, October 18, 2012). Stuart did not respond to the show 

cause order, however, and this court ordered him temporarily suspended 

and referred him to the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board for further 

proceedings based on the California convictions and his failure to respond 

to the show cause order. See id. (Order of Temporary Suspension, June 

21, 2013). 

Following Stuart's California disbarment, Nevada bar counsel 

filed this petition for reciprocal discipline, noting that Stuart's conviction 

violated SCR 111 (regarding attorneys convicted of crimes) and RPC 8.4(b) 

(providing that a criminal act that adversely reflects on an attorney's 

fitness as a lawyer is professional misconduct). The petition correctly 

notes that the California State Bar Court order recommending Stuart's 

disbarment identifies no aggravating factors and indicates that Stuart had 

no record of prior discipline. Stuart did not file a response to the petition 

and the time to do so has passed. 2 See SCR 114(3) (allowing an attorney 

15 days to file a response to a petition for reciprocal discipline) 

SCR 114 mandates the imposition of identical reciprocal 

discipline unless one of four exceptions applies. We conclude that one of 

the four exceptions exists in this matter, specifically, that the misconduct 

warrants different discipline in this state. SCR 114(4)(c). In particular, 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2All orders and other documents mailed to Stuart by this court in 

both this matter and the related proceeding in Docket No. 60061 have 

been returned to this court. 

3 

(D) 1947A 4WD 
, C.J. 

Hardesty 

Douglas 

we conclude that disbarment is not warranted because disbarment in 

Nevada is not equivalent to the disbarment imposed on Stuart in 

California, as disbarment in Nevada is irrevocable while in California an 

attorney may seek reinstatement after five years. See SCR 102(1); 

California Rules of Procedure of State Bar, Rule 5.442(B). 

Accordingly, we grant the petition for reciprocal discipline, but 

instead impose discipline in Nevada that is equivalent to the disbarment 

discipline imposed in California. Therefore, Stuart is hereby suspended 

from the practice of law for five years. Stuart must petition this court for 

reinstatement pursuant to SCR 116. Stuart shall comply with SCR 115 

and the State Bar of Nevada shall comply with SCR 121.1. 

It is so ORDERED. 

Pickering 

Parraguirre 

Saitta 

cc: David A. Clark, Bar Counsel 

Colbern Cox Stuart, HI 

Jeffery R. Albregts 

Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A